SMT. JASBIR KAUR SEHGAL versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 27-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. JASBIR KAUR SEHGAL 
A 
v. 
THE DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Maniage Act, 1955 
Section 24--Wife claiming maintenance pendente lite-During the pen-
dency of the divorce proceedings filed by husband-Held, right to claim C 
maintenance include her own maintenance and that of her children--lncome 
of husband is relevant-Grant of mai11te11ance depends upon the status of the 
parties, capacity of the husband to pa;r-Amount of maintenance should be 
such that she can live in reasonable comfort conside1i11g her status and the 
mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband-However, the 
amount so fu:ed should not be excessive or extortionate. 
D 
Maintenance pendente lite-Date on which Wife is entitled to claim 
maintenance-Held, right to claim mainte11ance fructifies on the date of the 
filing of the petition of divorce-Howeve1; court has discretion in the mat-
te~ircwnscances explained. 
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: 
Section 26-Scope of maintenance-Held, if wife has no income it is 
the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also the -children out of 
the maniage. 
Practice and Procedure : 
lmpleading trial and appellate courts as prof onna respondents-Not 
proper or justified. 
E 
F 
The respondent-husband retired from the Army and joined an Oil G 
company. Apart from the income from the above, he was also earning rent 
from his house. Two sons and a daughter were living with the husband and 
one daughter was living with the wife. On an application filed by the 
appellant-wife in the trial court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage 
Act in proceedings for divorce initiated by her husband, she was awarded H 
529 
530" 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Rs. 2500 as expenses oflitigation and maintenance pendente lite at the rate 
of Rs. 1000 per month. The revision filed before the District Judge was 
dismissed. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 227 
of the Constitution and the maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 1500. Hence 
this appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The wife has no source of income and she is also main· 
taining her eldest unmarried daughter. Under the Hindu Adoptions & 
Maintenance Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain his 
C unmarried daughter, if she is unable to maintain herself. In this case since 
the wife has no income of her own, it is the obligation of the husband to 
maintain her and her two unmarried daughters one of whom is living with 
his wife and one with him. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act no doubt 
talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but 
this section can not be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted 
D meaning to hold that it is the maintenance of the wife alone and noone 
else. In the instant case, the wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried 
daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own main· 
tenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while 
fixing the maintenance pendente lite for the wife. Section 26 of the Act 
E provides for custody of minor children, their maintenance and education 
but that section operates in its oun field. [534-C-E] 
2.1. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance.· 
It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstan-
ces of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. 
F 
Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, 
capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses 
for his own maintenance and those he is obliged under the law and 
statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount ofmahitenance 
fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort 
G considering her status and tht> mode of life she was used to when she lived 
with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the 
prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount fixed cannot be 
excessive or extortionate. [536-B-D] 
2.2. It appears from the affidavit of the husband that it conceals more 
H than what it tells of his income and other assets. Considering the diverse 
J.K. SEHGAL v. DISTI. JUDGE DEHRADUN 
531 
claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppress- A 
ing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the 
income o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.